Return to CALJIC Part 5-8 – Contents
F 8.85(d) Inst 1
Extreme Mental Or Emotional Disturbance (PC 190.3(d)):
Reasonable Person Standard Inapplicable
*Add to CJ 8.85(d):
Evidence has been received for the purpose of showing that the defendant was under the influence of extreme [mental] [emotional] disturbance at the time that the offense was committed. You may not discount that evidence even if you conclude that a reasonable person would not have been under such influence. Your only concern in this regard is whether the defendant was actually under the influence of such a disturbance.
Points and Authorities
People v. Holt (97) 15 C4th 619, 710-11 [63 CR2d 782], Werdegar concurring, held that the “reasonable person” standard is inappropriate in determining whether a person actually acted under extreme mental or emotional disturbance under PC 190.3(d). The persuasive force of the proffered mitigating evidence may not be discounted due to a belief that a reasonable person would not have been under such influence. To do so would be to fail to accord the defendant’s mitigating evidence the weight to which it was legally entitled in violation of the Federal Constitution (8th and 14th Amendments). Clarification of this distinction is particularly important in cases where instruction on the reasonable person standard was given elsewhere in the instructions (e.g., heat of passion, self-defense.)
It is essential under the 8th Amendment of the federal constitution that the jury consider all relevant mitigating evidence. (See Lockett v. Ohio (78) 438 US 586 [57 LEd2d 973; 98 SCt 2954].)